N-565 questions

[TF04 0]

I'm hoping someone else has experience with this type of situation. I know what the standard response from USCIS is (I just received it, in a slightly incoherent fashion, for the umpteenth time in my USCIS Inbox), but when all these rules were written, nobody had envisioned a global pandemic would slow things down THIS much.

My wife became a citizen in June. We moved in July and in the move discovered that we could not find her citizenship certificate. In hindsight, we should have just applied for a passport ASAP, but we were put off by the long processing times (oh, the irony). We filed the N-565, and, at the time, processing times were being indicated around six to eight months. We were a bit surprised that a simple piece of paper takes this long to process, but couldn't really do anything.

In the months that passed, we received only a confirmation of the fact that Nebraska has received our documents package. Not even a note of whether or not they were sufficient. Now I see on USCIS's website that the waiting time has more than doubled (16 to 20 months) and the only people who can ask for a case inquiry are those who filed after April 2019...

It seems unfathomable to me that we might have to end up waiting for nearly two years for my wife to be able to leave and safely return to the States. It's not something we're planning on doing anytime soon, with Covid and all, but it would be nice to be able to travel once we have our shots. Furthermore, my wife's grandmother is getting on in years and should the unfortunate happen, it would be good if my wife was at least able to say goodbye. It's just really tough to fathom that she had more traveling rights with her green card and travel document than she does as a citizen after an unfortunate turn of events...

Any advice? Can anything be done at all? We've retained copies of her certificate, but were told we wouldn't be able to use those to apply for a passport. Would her travel document still be valid? (pretty sure we've retained that) Clutching at straws here.

Edited January 14, 2021 by TF04

[HRQX 4,145]

9 minutes ago, TF04 said:

It seems unfathomable to me that we might have to end up waiting for nearly two years for my wife to be able to leave and safely return to the States.

Which is her original citizenship? Does she still have that citizenship (or is it a country that doesn't allow dual citizenship)? Depending on the original citizenship, she could return to the US by flying to Mexico or Canada and then presenting her certificate photocopy at the US land border. Expect secondary inspection process at the US POE.

[TF04 0]

3 hours ago, HRQX said:

Which is her original citizenship? Does she still have that citizenship (or is it a country that doesn't allow dual citizenship)? Depending on the original citizenship, she could return to the US by flying to Mexico or Canada and then presenting her certificate photocopy at the US land border. Expect secondary inspection process at the US POE.

Russian. She still has a Canadian visa in her Russian passport, as well, but I am not sure that’s a risk I’d want to take...

[HRQX 4,145]

3 hours ago, TF04 said:

Russian. She still has a Canadian visa in her Russian passport, as well, but I am not sure that’s a risk I’d want to take...

In the following video, the CBP officer says, "We cannot deny US citizens the right to come into the United States." https://youtu.be/1FB1FTXwGLw?t=2237 The traveler in the video had absolutely no ID on him and he still entered the US after CBP confirmed his identity.

[TF04 0]

3 hours ago, HRQX said:

In the following video, the CBP officer says, "We cannot deny US citizens the right to come into the United States." https://youtu.be/1FB1FTXwGLw?t=2237 The traveler in the video had absolutely no ID on him and he still entered the US after CBP confirmed his identity.

Heartening though that might be, it's not really going to serve as hard evidence for her. Besides, if this were true, why Canada/Mexico? I appreciate the idea, but this is literally last resort type of stuff.

[Mollie09 1,543]

3 hours ago, TF04 said:

Heartening though that might be, it's not really going to serve as hard evidence for her. Besides, if this were true, why Canada/Mexico? I appreciate the idea, but this is literally last resort type of stuff.

Because no airline would let a US citizen board a flight on their word that they are a US citizen, so only land crossings would work.

[TF04 0]

1 hour ago, Mollie09 said:

Because no airline would let a US citizen board a flight on their word that they are a US citizen, so only land crossings would work.

What I mean is if this loophole (or an official rule? could we read that somewhere?) exists, why hasn't it been extended to airlines, as well?

[TF04 0]

Just FYI, I called Port Huron, MI and it appears that it is, indeed, possible. Just need to make sure she still has that Canadian visa...

 

Yep, she does. Expires 7.2.2021 (which I'm HOPING is July, because apparently Canada does mm.dd AND dd.mm).

Edited January 14, 2021 by TF04

[Mollie09 1,543]

16 minutes ago, TF04 said:

What I mean is if this loophole (or an official rule? could we read that somewhere?) exists, why hasn't it been extended to airlines, as well?

Not a loophole, but airlines are private businesses and they are allowed to deny boarding to anyone. If they transport a passenger who is not allowed to enter the US, they are responsible for sending that person back so they're not going to risk something like this on your wife's word. Immigration officers have the means and the obligation to verify it.

[Mollie09 1,543]

9 minutes ago, TF04 said:

Just FYI, I called Port Huron, MI and it appears that it is, indeed, possible. Just need to make sure she still has that Canadian visa...

 

Yep, she does. Expires 7.2.2021 (which I'm HOPING is July, because apparently Canada does mm.dd AND dd.mm).

Canadian visas are DDMMYYYY, so it expires February 7th

[TF04 0]

11 minutes ago, Mollie09 said:

Canadian visas are DDMMYYYY, so it expires February 7th

Сrap.

Edited January 14, 2021 by TF04

[TF04 0]

 

15 minutes ago, Mollie09 said:

Not a loophole, but airlines are private businesses and they are allowed to deny boarding to anyone. If they transport a passenger who is not allowed to enter the US, they are responsible for sending that person back so they're not going to risk something like this on your wife's word. Immigration officers have the means and the obligation to verify it.

I get that. I'm just curious why rules are different for different types of port of entry. Presumably airlines didn't just decide they'd deny boarding to someone in this situation - it's based on the risk of this occurring, which I am sure is very real. Question is why it is real, that's all. If you're a citizen who can enter via land, ostensibly you should be able to enter via other ways, as well, as is your right.

Edited January 14, 2021 by TF04

[HRQX 4,145]

44 minutes ago, TF04 said:

What I mean is if this loophole (or an official rule? could we read that somewhere?) exists

Federal courts have recognized a US citizen's absolute right to enter the US.

 

Nguyen v. I.N.S. is the main case cited as support for recognition by the Supreme Court of a US citizen’s right to enter the US. In that case, the Court stated, “Congress is well within its authority in refusing, absent proof of at least the opportunity for the development of a relationship between citizen parent and child, to commit the United States to embracing a child as a citizen entitled as of birth to the full protection of the United States, to the absolute right to enter its borders, and to full participation in the political process.” Since the case involved a defense against deportation/removal predicated on US citizenship, and the Court noted that being a citizen meant being entitled to the absolute right to enter US borders, the Court has, arguably, recognized that there is such a right.

Lower federal courts have recognized the right of a US citizen to enter the U.S without a passport. In Worthy v. United States, a federal appellate court held that imposing a criminal penalty on a US citizen for entering the US without a passport was unconstitutional. The court found that, “We think it is inherent in the concept of citizenship that the citizen, when absent from the country to which he owes allegiance, has a right to return, again to set foot on its soil. . . . We do not think that a citizen, absent from his country, can have his fundamental right to have free ingress thereto subject to a criminal penalty if he does not have a passport.”

In refusing to dismiss a US citizen’s lawsuit against the US Government for detaining and attempting to deport him despite his assertion of US citizenship at a port of entry, the federal district court in Lyttle v. U.S. found that the government could not deny entry to a person and put him into expedited removal if he had a credible claim to citizenship. Despite the plaintiff’s presentation of a passport upon re-entry, the immigration officers decided that the passport was fraudulently obtained and did not accept it as proof of the plaintiff’s citizenship and right to enter. This determination was based on the plaintiff’s prior, erroneous deportation. The plaintiff was mentally disabled and had been unable to contest his prior deportation effectively. After deportation, ultimately, he had been able to prove to a US consulate that he was, in fact, a US citizen and the consulate had issued him a passport. Among other things, the government tried to argue that it had followed authorized procedures, but the court held that the immigration laws did not authorize the government to detain or deport US citizens. Therefore, the government should not have ignored the plaintiff’s credible assertion of US citizenship and put him in expedited removal.

Edited January 14, 2021 by HRQX

[TF04 0]

14 minutes ago, HRQX said:

Federal courts have recognized a US citizen's absolute right to enter the US.

 

Nguyen v. I.N.S. is the main case cited as support for recognition by the Supreme Court of a US citizen’s right to enter the US. In that case, the Court stated, “Congress is well within its authority in refusing, absent proof of at least the opportunity for the development of a relationship between citizen parent and child, to commit the United States to embracing a child as a citizen entitled as of birth to the full protection of the United States, to the absolute right to enter its borders, and to full participation in the political process.” Since the case involved a defense against deportation/removal predicated on US citizenship, and the Court noted that being a citizen meant being entitled to the absolute right to enter US borders, the Court has, arguably, recognized that there is such a right.

Lower federal courts have recognized the right of a US citizen to enter the U.S without a passport. In Worthy v. United States, a federal appellate court held that imposing a criminal penalty on a US citizen for entering the US without a passport was unconstitutional. The court found that, “We think it is inherent in the concept of citizenship that the citizen, when absent from the country to which he owes allegiance, has a right to return, again to set foot on its soil. . . . We do not think that a citizen, absent from his country, can have his fundamental right to have free ingress thereto subject to a criminal penalty if he does not have a passport.”

In refusing to dismiss a US citizen’s lawsuit against the US Government for detaining and attempting to deport him despite his assertion of US citizenship at a port of entry, the federal district court in Lyttle v. U.S. found that the government could not deny entry to a person and put him into expedited removal if he had a credible claim to citizenship. Despite the plaintiff’s presentation of a passport upon re-entry, the immigration officers decided that the passport was fraudulently obtained and did not accept it as proof of the plaintiff’s citizenship and right to enter. This determination was based on the plaintiff’s prior, erroneous deportation. The plaintiff was mentally disabled and had been unable to contest his prior deportation effectively. After deportation, ultimately, he had been able to prove to a US consulate that he was, in fact, a US citizen and the consulate had issued him a passport. Among other things, the government tried to argue that it had followed authorized procedures, but the court held that the immigration laws did not authorize the government to detain or deport US citizens. Therefore, the government should not have ignored the plaintiff’s credible assertion of US citizenship and put him in expedited removal.

Thank you! I'm going to grab the citation to take with us if need be

[HRQX 4,145]

50 minutes ago, TF04 said:

Expires 7.2.2021

Or she could travel to Mexico. She would just need an Electronic Authorization to enter Mexico with her Russian passport: https://www.inm.gob.mx/sae/publico/en/solicitud.html

Edited January 14, 2021 by HRQX